DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
According to 37 CFR 1.83, the drawings must show all features. As the claims specify method steps the process steps must be shown; method steps may be illustrated by an appropriate flow chart or a series of pictures showing the steps in sequence.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 1C, reference numerals 202 and 204 do not refer to a handle and strings, respectively, as set forth in paragraph [0053] of the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended”. If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the last line of paragraph [0066] is incomplete.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In line 2, “the connection” lacks a proper antecedent basis; --point-- should added after “connection”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0048315 (Turner).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Turner discloses a swing path training apparatus with the recited support structure 14,28,38. Curved guide assembly 12 corresponds to the recited path member and has a first guide 16 and a second guide 18. See Turner, Figures 1-9. Turner further discloses a fixed connector 26 that corresponds to the recited closed end that connects first guide 16 and second guide 18. See Turner, Figure 4. Figure 4 of Turner further shows an opening at distal end 16b that corresponds to the recited opening.
Claims 2, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner as applied above.
Regarding claim 2, Turner does not disclose retractable rods. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the Turner support structure from retractable rods, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to make elements adjustable as a matter of obvious engineering choice. See In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284.
Regarding claim 8, Turner does not show the supports to cross one another at a connection point. However, it would have been obvious to substitute crossing supports for the supports shown in Turner since it has generally been recognized that the shifting the location of parts involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 9, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the Turner supports by having two supports connected via an opening, since applicant has not disclosed that having this specific connection solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the swing training apparatus would perform equally well with any type or number of supports.
Claims 4, 5, 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner as applied above in view of U.S. Patent Number 5,895,327 (Francisco).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Turner does not show an angled path. Francisco discloses another swing training apparatus that has an angled lower half. See Francisco, Figure 1. The substitution of one known element (an angled path as shown in Francisco) for another (a curved path as shown in Turner) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the angled path shown in Francisco would have yielded predictable results, namely, an effective way to develop a proper “inside out” professional-type golf swing.
Regarding claim 5, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the Turner guides as modified above from connected segments, since such a modification would have involved a mere separation of parts. To make elements separable is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177.
Regarding claim 7, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the angled path with the recited orientation, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner and Francisco as applied above in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0113193 (Wardle et al., hereinafter Wardle).
Turner does not show the recited corrugated track and tab. Wardle discloses that it is old and well-known in the connector art to connect elements together with a corrugated track 34 and tab 38. See Wardle, Figure 3. To connect the Turner segments as modified above would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of Wardle, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, i.e., one skilled in the art would have recognized that the corrugated connectors used in Wardle would allow the Turner segments to be easily attached and separated.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner as applied above in view of U.S. Patent Number 9,227,130 (Burdick).
Regarding claims 15-17, using the Turner as intended requires inserting a golf club into a path of path member 12, positioning the club head near the closed end and swinging it toward and through the opening. Turner discloses a golf club instead of a tennis racquet. Burdick teaches that it is old and well-known in the sports training art that tennis training devices are used wherein a tennis racquet is guided through a desired path to teach a player the correct way to execute a particular stroke. See Burdick, Figure 1. The substitution of one known element (tennis racquet as shown in Burdick) for another (golf club as shown in Turner) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the tennis racquet would have yielded predictable results, namely an apparatus to teach a player the proper way to swing a racquet.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Number 9,227,130 (Burdick).
Regarding claims 15-17, Burdick discloses a racquet 8 inserted into a curved path of a path member 2 via an opening 3. See Burdick, Figures 1, 3 and 4. The path can be considered to can be considered to defined between a closed first guide (left side of path member 2) and an open second guide (right side of path member 2). See Burdick, Figure 4. Figure 1 of Burdick shows the racquet positioned near a closed end 5 and swung along the path towards the opening (bottom of Figure 1).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burdick as applied above in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0144048 (Loucareas).
Burdick does not explicitly show an angled path. However, Loucareas shows that some tennis strokes can follow an angled path. See Loucareas, Figure 1. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the curved path of Burdick with the angled path of Loucareas by known methods to teach a particular swing path and stroke and the results would have been a predictable use of known tennis strokes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the curved path with an angled path.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14, 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Raleigh Chiu whose telephone number is (571) 272-4408. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Tuesday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim, can be reached on (571) 272-4463.
The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
It is noted that all practice before the Office is in writing (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2) and the proper authority for action on any matter in this regard are the statutes (35 U.S.C.), regulations (37 C.F.R.) and the commentary on policy (MPEP). Therefore, no telephone discussion may be controlling or considered authority of Petitioner’s/Caller’s action(s).
/RALEIGH W CHIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711